2.6 - Greater Hobart Urban Travel Demand Model

Greater Hobart Urban Travel Demand Model

Oliver Charlesworth

28 November 2011

Introduction

Hobart – Existing & Future Conditions

Pre-existing Models & Data

Cube Model Overview

Model Details:

- Trip Generation & Distribution

- Park & Ride Model

- Time Period Model

- Parking Supply & Demand Model

Model validation

GHUTDM December 15, 2011

Introduction

Hobart – Existing Conditions

- Population & Employment

- Road Network

- Public Transport

Hobart – Future Conditions

- Transport infrastructure (new roads, increased road capacity, light rail)

- Land use (e.g. new residential development)

- Demographics (changes in population & employment levels)

- Economic conditions (increased vehicle operating costs)

- PT service characteristics (improved frequencies, fare changes, etc>)


Pre-existing Models & Data

December 15, 2011

Models:

Limited.

Data:

GIS Network Layer

Traffic Counts

Patronage Counts

Travel Times

The Greater Hobart Household Travel Survey 2008-2009

Census Data

GHUTDM

Cube Model Overview


Cube Model Structure

December 15, 2011

MODEL OUTPUTS

Generalised cost skims

Daily person trip ends

Daily P-A trips by purpose

AM, PM, OP O-D matrices by mode

Traffic/passenger flowsNetwork performanceGeneralised cost skims

Daily P-A trips by purpose and mode

Report

DATA INPUTS MODEL PROCESS

InitializationHwy & PT assignment

Initial network

External Model

Commercial Vehicle Model

Hwy & PT assignment by time period assignment

Demographic data

HH segmentationCar ownership modelTrip generation

Trip Production /

- Trip ends- Generalised costs- Gravity modelParameters by

- Daily P-A trips- Mode split factors by purpose & sector

Trip distribution

Mode choice

Time period model / CBD parking delay model

Blended cost skims

- Time period factors by purpose & sector- Vehicle occupancy factors by purpose

- Network development (zones, roads, etc)- Speed/flow curves (link costs, tolls)

ConvergenceYes

No

A

naly

se H

ouse

hold

Sur

vey

Dat

a

GHUTDM

Cube Model – Road Network

December 15, 2011 GHUTDM

Trip Production

Trip Attraction

Number of householdsPopulationNumber of workersDependants- Dependants (0-11)- Dependants (12-17)- Dependants (18-65)- Retirees (65+)

Enrolments categorised by:- Kindergarten/primary school enrolments- Secondary school enrolments- Tertiary institution enrolments which

include Universities and TAFE.Employment categorised by 5 types:- Education- Entertainment- Industry- Retail- Service

Model Details – Trip Generation


The trip generation model consists of the following sub-models:

- Household Stratification Model

- Car Ownership Model

- Trip Production Model

- Trip Attraction Model








Household Stratification Model

- Workers per Household: 0 to 3+ workers

- Dependants per Household: 0 to 3+ dependants

- Cars per Household: 0 to 2+ cars








Car Ownership Model

Linear regression to estimate the average number of cars per household as a function of:

- Number of workers

- Number of dependants

- Accessibility to employment by public transport (via assignment ) [Iterative]








Trip Production Model

Trip Production = Trip rate per household category X No. of households at each category

Trip rates = No. person trips / No. households

8 home based trip purposes x 3 car ownership levels (0, 1, 2+ cars) + 2 non-home based trip purposes= 26 travel market segments








Trip Attraction Model

Attraction Variable data: employment by type and educational enrolments for each zone



Model Details – Trip Distribution

Distribute Motorised & Non-Motorised person trips

Gravity Model:

- Extract observed OD matrices by purpose from the Greater Hobart Household Travel Survey (GHHTS)

- Assign observed matrices and skim daily generalised costs, blended by mode (public and private transport) and time periods for each purpose [Iterative]

- Use the MVGRAM module: input of observed OD matrices and generalised cost by purpose, to estimate parameters and .

- Check the trip length distribution.


Model Details – Park & Ride

P&R model includes three components:

- network development

- mode choice and

- public transport assignment

Additional delay could be included

In time period model, the P&R demand is further split into a production-attraction direction (such as home to work) and an attraction-production direction (such as work to home)


Railway Station

Park and Ride Site

Bus Stop

Road

Road with Bus Route

Railway Line Zone Centroid

LT 18

LT 16

LT 18

LT 12

LT 12

LT 12

LT 42

LT 40

LT 40

LT 40

LT 99

Gate

LT 41

Road

Road with Bus Route

LT 99

Bus Stop

Model Details – Time Period

Greater Hobart Household Travel Survey used to derive production to attraction factors and attraction to production factors for each trip (applied to daily)

More accurate representation of asymmetrical travel patterns

Split into each time period using the time period factors derived using information from the Greater Hobart Household Travel Survey (GHHTS).


Trip Purpose

Production to Attraction Factor

Attraction to Production Factor

HBW 0.529 0.471

HBEP 0.553 0.447

HBES 0.545 0.456

HBET 0.534 0.466

HBSh 0.482 0.518

HBR 0.484 0.516

HBV 0.462 0.538

HBO 0.472 0.528

NHBO 0.500 0.500

NHBW 0.500 0.5000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

% o

f Dai

ly M

otor

ised

Trip

s

Starting Hour of Trip

Model Details – Parking Supply & Demand

Parking charges were incorporated into generalised cost of private travel

The parking delay was capped at 35 minutes

Parking supply specified at larger sector level (not zonal)


Model Validation – Comparison of Trip Generation

December 15, 2011

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Modelled

HTS

Comparison of Trip Production (Daily Person Trips)

GHUTDM

Model Validation – Comparison of Trip Distribution

December 15, 2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Ave

rage

Trip

Len

gth

(km

)

Travel Market Segments

ObservedModelled

Comparison between modelled and observed average trip length

GHUTDM

Model Validation – Comparison of Mode Choice

December 15, 2011GHUTDM

Comparison between modelled and observed mode share by purpose

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HBW HBEP HBES HBET HBS HBR HBV HBO NHBO NHBW Total

Car Modelled

Car Observed

PT Modelled

PT Observed

Cycle Modelled

Cycle Observed

Walk Modelled

Walk Observed

Model Validation – Assignment Comparison of Highway Volumes

December 15, 2011

y = 0.93xR² = 0.96

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

One

-way

traf

fic v

olum

e (m

odel

led)

One-way traffic volume (observed)

Observed and modelled daily traffic volumes (cars only) for all sites

GHUTDM

Model Validation – Assignment Comparison of PT Boardings

December 15, 2011

Observed and modelled daily bus boardings by corridory = 1.08xR² = 0.98

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

One

-way

boa

rdin

gs b

y co

rrid

or (m

odel

led)

One-way boardings by corridor (observed)

GHUTDM

Thank You

[email protected]

2.6 - Greater Hobart Urban Travel Demand Model

Documents

Transcript of 2.6 - Greater Hobart Urban Travel Demand Model